ON ST. NECTARIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCH,
IN THE YEAR 397.
HISTORICO-CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
Nectarius, patriarch of Constantinople. (S.)
BY C. B.
§ I. Why we grant Nectarius, inscribed only in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks, a place here in our Work.
Although the Patriarch of Constantinople here proposed is adorned by St. John Cassian, book 7 On the Incarnation of the Lord, chapter 31, as Distinguished for holiness, and by other ancient writers with the title of Blessed and Most Holy, Nectarius, who truly was a Saint, St. Cassian Cuper, in his Chronological Dissertation on the Patriarchs of Constantinople prefixed to volume 1 of August of our Work, nevertheless always abstained from attributing that appellation to Nectarius, and left it to be discussed in the same Work of ours on the 27th day of September or the 11th of October whether he deserves to be called either Saint or Blessed. Wherefore, since this was not yet discussed on the former of these two days, on which only a brief mention of Nectarius was made among the Passed Over, it remains that we now discuss the matter. Nor shall we do this alone here, but we shall also show, in order that it may become evident that a place among the Saints is rightly attributed here to Nectarius in our Work, that the title of Saint deservedly belongs to him on account of the virtues in which he was eminent. It is indeed commonly known to all (see du Cange in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity at the word Sanctitas) that the epithet Saint was formerly attributed indiscriminately, especially to prelates who lived or had died in the communion of the Catholic Church, even if they were by no means to be commended for holiness of life and morals, for the sake of veneration or honour, by a custom used from the very cradle of the Church; but it does not appear likely that Nectarius was called distinguished for holiness by Cassian in the place cited above out of that custom, or for the sake of honour only, and not in order that he might be signified as truly illustrious for holiness. Nor would I dare to assert that all the other ancient writers who adorned Nectarius only with the title of Saint or Most Holy did so solely out of the aforesaid ancient custom.
[2] Certainly St. Nicholas I, Pontiff, who occupied the Roman chair of St. Peter from the year 858 to the year 867, and St. Nicholas I, Pope, undoubtedly believed, adorned Nectarius with the appellation of most holy Man, not for the sake of honour only, but to signify that he was truly illustrious for holiness of life. Hear what he says, in Labbe, volume VIII of the Councils, 283, in his letter to Photius, who affirmed that he had deservedly come from the rank of laymen to the episcopal dignity after the example of Ambrose, Nectarius and Tarasius. Rashly and impudently, he says, you presumed to approach the summit of so great an honour, taking to yourselves an occasion as though from the most holy Man Nectarius, whom the holy second synod wished to elect and ordain to the priestly dignity from the lay order for no other reason than because it was distressed by the affliction of a great necessity, in that in the holy church of Constantinople none of the clerics could be found who was not hindered by the cloudy darkness of a most evil heresy; and on this account, lest the aforesaid church should remain long as it were widowed in the destitution of a pastor, the aforesaid second synod elected the aforesaid vanquisher of heretics and defender and governor of the churches to the ecclesiastical charge and the priestly dignity. These things the praised Pontiff; and since he thus adorns Nectarius with a most honourable elogium, and is not to be judged to have said or insinuated in it what he did not think, he undoubtedly believed that Nectarius, whom he calls both vanquisher of heretics and most holy Man, was conspicuous for Holiness of Life, and did not ascribe to him the most beautiful title of Most Holy Man for the sake of honour only.
[3] [to be excluded from the number of the Saints, nor the life led before the episcopate,] But, you will say, Baronius, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 381, num. 69, instituting a comparison between Gregory of Nazianzus, who had abdicated the episcopate of Constantinople, and Nectarius, who had been substituted for him, speaks in the following manner: But as to what concerns the creation of Nectarius, there happened plainly a prodigy and plainly a portent. For when a bishop not unequal to Gregory in merits and learning, who was to be substituted in his place, ought to have been sought (for according to the opinion of John Chrysostom, when a stone is taken out of a structure, one similar to it in size is to be placed there, lest anything remain empty in the wall), it happened that in place of a most perfect Christian there was substituted a man not yet a Christian, but still a catechumen; and in place of a most perfect theologian there was put a man entirely unskilled in ecclesiastical matters; and finally for a monk of most consummate perfection a man sought from the senate, and in place of a Virgin there was given one who had hitherto lived rather intemperately, as he himself testifies in Sozomen; who, although he could have seemed dexterous in conducting the business of the world, yet in ecclesiastical functions (to speak with Gregory) displayed a living corpse, in no part at all to be compared with Gregory himself. That Nectarius surely, who, when he was elected bishop of Constantinople, was still a Neophyte, was then, as Baronius says here, to Gregory of Nazianzus in merits, learning, skill in ecclesiastical matters, virtue and of life
far inferior in perfection, no one will deny; but even if it be so, Nectarius afterwards, as we shall see below, excelled in virtue to the highest degree in the episcopate; and since by the sacred washing, which he received as soon as he had been elected bishop, all the offences which he had committed before, however grave, were blotted out, there is surely no reason why he should be said to be excluded from the number of the Saints on account of the life he led before the episcopate.
[4] Nor, as it appears, does Nectarius himself, in Sozomen, book 7, chapter 10, testify, as Baronius thought, that he had been intemperate and unchaste up to the time that up to the time when he was elected bishop, at which he was elected bishop of Constantinople. The matter does indeed stand so, if one looks to the translation of Sozomen made by Christophorson, which Baronius followed; but that this is not to be relied upon I shall show below, once I have first transcribed here the words of Sozomen bearing on this point concerning Nectarius, already raised to the see of Constantinople, as the Latin translation of him by Valesius presents them. They run thus: Nectarius …, using Cyriacus, bishop of Adana, as his instructor, learned the priestly office. For he had asked Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, that he would allow this man to remain with him for some time. But he also drew many other Cilicians to stay with him, and among the rest Martyrius. Since he had this man as his intimate and his physician, and as one privy to all the offences he had committed in his youth, he had in mind to ordain him deacon. But Martyrius by no means allowed this to be done, affirming that he was unworthy of the divine mystery, and bidding Nectarius himself be witness of his former life. To whom Nectarius said: Did not I, who am now a priest, formerly lead my life much more carelessly than you, as you yourself can testify, who very often ministered to my intemperance? He, replying, said: But you, O Blessed one, having recently received Baptism, were cleansed, and after Baptism received the Priesthood. Both of these have been established by divine law for the expiation of sins. And to me you seem to differ in nothing from newly born infants. But I, who received sacred Baptism long ago, have persevered in the same manner of living as before. And so this man, alleging such a reason, declined ordination.
[5] In place of the words by which, in the text of Sozomen just now recited, Nectarius declares that in time past, or formerly, he had lived much more carelessly that he had been intemperate, Nectarius himself, as Baronius thought, than Martyrius had done, Christophorson uses the following: Did not I … the same, who am now a priest, lead my life up to this time much more dissolutely than you yours, since you yourself can testify to it, who very often lent aid to my frequent intemperance? Hence it came about that Baronius supposed that Nectarius himself, in Sozomen, testifies that he lived intemperately up to the time when he was elected bishop. But the cited words of Christophorson do not accord exactly in meaning with the Greek words of Sozomen to which they correspond. For these, which are the following, ἢ οὐκ ἐγὼ, … ὁ νῦν ἱερεὺς, ἀμελέστερόν σου πολλῷ τὸν προτοῦ διετέθην βίον, ὡς καὶ ἀυτὸς μαρτυρεῖς, πολλάκις διακονησάμενος πολλαῖς ἐμαις ἀκολασίαις· are to be rendered in Latin, not as is done by Christophorson, but — since the word προτοῦ signifies in Latin prius or antehac ("formerly"), and not hactenus ("up to this time"), which in Greek is expressed by μέχρι τούτου — in this manner, lest there be any departure whatever from the mind of the Greek author: Did not I, … now a priest, formerly pass my life much more carelessly than you, as even you yourself, who very often served my intemperance, can testify? Thus Nectarius indicates, not that he lived intemperately up to the time when he was made bishop or priest, but either shortly or long before it; indeed, most probably, he signifies only that he did so in his youth, if one looks to the mind of Sozomen, who had said a little before, in the text recited in the preceding number, that Martyrius was privy to all the offences which Nectarius had committed in his youth.
[6] is not testified in Sozomen, Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History, book 12, chapter 14, saw this without doubt; and hence, for the thirteen first Greek words of Sozomen just transcribed here, he substitutes in the same place these following Greek words, Ἐγω δ᾽ ὁ νῦν ἱερεὺς, ούκ ἀμελέστερον σοῦ ἐν νεότητι διαγέγονα βίον, which sound in Latin: Did not I, who am now bishop, lead my life in youth more thoughtlessly than you? Now, since it is so, and since Nectarius, when he was elected bishop of Constantinople, was already venerable with grey hair, as Sozomen relates in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 8, it cannot be proved from the very testimony of Nectarius himself that he was at that time still in that corruption of morals which is asserted by Baronius. And indeed Socrates and Theodoret also prevent us from believing that what Baronius says is signified by this. For the former, in the Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 8, speaking of the election of Nectarius to the see of Constantinople, records the following: There was at that time a certain man, Nectarius by name, mild in manners and altogether admirable in his whole life, although he was discharging the office of praetor. He, seized by the people, is chosen to undertake the episcopal charge, and is ordained by the hundred and fifty bishops who were then present there (at Constantinople); while the latter, in the Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 8, writes thus of the same election: They ordained Nectarius, a patrician, distinguished by nobility of birth and illustrious in all virtues, bishop of that very great city (Constantinople). So those two writers; but whatever may be the case regarding the corruption of morals in which Nectarius perhaps still was while he was being elected bishop of Constantinople, it cannot, as I have already said, be argued from this that he is to be excluded from the number of the Saints, since he both put on other manners in the episcopate and obtained from God, through Baptism, received immediately upon his election as bishop, the pardon of all the offences which he had committed before.
[7] nor the greater, which at one time in him Nor likewise can this be done on the ground that greater vigilance in repressing heretics was at one time found wanting in Nectarius when already bishop. The emperor Theodosius, who, as the Theodosian Code, book 16, title 5, on heretics, law 12, makes plain, had most severely forbidden the Eunomians, Arians, Macedonians, Apolinarians or Apolinarists, and other heretics to hold assemblies, in the year 383, on the 3rd day of September, afterwards granted the Apolinarists the faculty of doing so; and to these, who thereafter lived freely at Constantinople and held assemblies, Nectarius, they say, did not oppose himself, as was fitting and as he ought to have done, by urging the emperor to revoke the said faculty. And to give proof of this they allege the longer letter in which Gregory Nazianzen, in volume 1 of his Works, exhorts Nectarius in the strongest manner to induce the emperor to revoke that faculty; and not without reason: for in this letter — from which, moreover, anyone will easily draw out what I have just said of the faculty granted to the Apolinarists by Theodosius — Gregory, having first, at page 721 there, complained most bitterly of the Arians, Macedonians, and Eunomius, who were also doing the greatest harm to the Church, then speaks in the following manner: And yet these things are to be borne. But what is the bitterest of all the calamities of the Church is the licence of the Apollinarists, whom I know not how your piety has suffered to arrogate to themselves the authority of holding assemblies, equally with us. And although, by the favour of God, being instructed and learned in the divine mysteries, you know not only the defence of right doctrine but also all those things which have been devised by heretics against the sound and orthodox faith, yet it will not be at all unseasonable that your honour be informed by our littleness that there is in my hands a pamphlet of Apollinarius, in which the things asserted exceed all heretical depravity. Here Gregory sets out the chief heads of the impious doctrine of Apollinarius, and then proceeds thus: Accordingly, if those who hold such opinions are permitted to have assemblies, I would that your prudence, illustrious in Christ, would consider and weigh this: that since we do not agree with their dogmas, for the faculty of holding assemblies to have been granted to them is nothing else than to judge their doctrine truer than ours. For if they are permitted, as though thinking piously, to teach and freely to promulgate what they think, who does not see that the doctrine of the Church is condemned, just as if the truth stood on their side? For the nature of things does not allow two contrary doctrines about the same thing to be true.
[8] How then has your lofty and excellent spirit endured not to use its accustomed freedom for the correction of so great an evil? was found wanting against heretics But even if this has not yet been done, now at least let your inimitable virtue, perfect in all its parts, be roused, and teach the most pious emperor that no advantage will return from the rest of his zeal toward the churches, if such an evil prevails, through their freedom and licence, to the overthrow of the sound faith. Thus far Gregory; and from these words of his, they say, it may surely with justice be inferred that Nectarius did not show himself as prompt and eager as was fitting in repressing the Apollinarists. But even if it be so (for I would not deny even this, as I have already hinted), does it immediately follow from this likewise that this Patriarch of ours of Constantinople ought to be struck out of the number of the Saints? Certainly I would yield hand and foot to the opinion of those who should assert this if, as Tillemont says in volume 9 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 488, he had never, from softness and sloth, opposed himself to vices and heretics; but from the fact that Nectarius did not at one time use the fervour befitting the pastoral office against the Apollinarists, it cannot be inferred that he never did so against these and other heretics and was always inert in restraining vices; nay, on the contrary, that Nectarius was accustomed freely to oppose himself both to heretics and to vices appears to be concluded in part from the very letter of Gregory Nazianzen just recited, since in it he is rebuked by Gregory because he did not use his accustomed or usual freedom to curb the licence and audacity of the Apollinarists.
[9] vigilance However that may be, it appears that we must believe that Nectarius, if not before, at least after the letter, partly transcribed above, by which he was spurred on by Gregory Nazianzen, at once forcefully and gently, to curb the Apollinarists, opposed himself to these and other heretics, and that not unsuccessfully, as befitted a watchful pastor burning with zeal for defending the faith. For had he not done so, who could bring himself to believe that he would have been honoured with that most honourable title by Pope Nicholas I, who, as we saw above, afterwards called him the Vanquisher of heretics in a letter written to Photius? Moreover, the letter to Nectarius mentioned above was certainly, as it will be possible to gather from what is to be said below, by Gregory Nazianzen, when Theodosius, before he from the East into the West against the tyrant Maximus
should move, was staying in the East, written; but if Nectarius opposed himself to heretics neither before nor after this letter, why was it that, while Theodosius was waging war in Italy after, or in, the year 388 against the tyrant Maximus, the Arians, who had spread a false rumour of the emperor's murder and had thus given the populace courage to dare anything, set fire to the house of Nectarius? Then indeed, says Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 13, the Arians, having regained their confidence, broke out into open madness and, throwing torches, set fire to the house of the bishop Nectarius. This was done when the Augustus Theodosius, for the second time, and Cynegius were consuls, that is, in the year of Christ 388. Indeed, from this most manifest proof of the hatred of the Arians against Nectarius, it can not without reason be argued that he burned with great zeal against them and other heretics, if not before, at least after receiving the letter of Gregory Nazianzen. And indeed Nectarius, obeying the exhortation received through it, most probably showed that same letter to the emperor Theodosius and induced him to perform what Gregory desired.
[10] [proves, into our Work, although he is celebrated in the Fasti of the Greeks alone] Theodosius certainly, when Nectarius had already occupied the see of Constantinople for some time after the year 383, severely forbade all heretics, and by name the Apollinarists, to hold assemblies, before his expedition against the tyrant Maximus; and Tillemont, in volume VI of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 633, and Baronius, in the Annals at the year 384, number 35, judge that this may be credited to the letter already often mentioned which Gregory wrote to Nectarius, and which the latter accordingly showed to Theodosius. Everything therefore being carefully weighed, it is not proved, even from the fact that greater vigilance against heretics was at one time found wanting in Nectarius, that he, whom Pope Nicholas I nonetheless calls the Vanquisher of heretics and a most holy Man in the letter praised above, is to be excluded from the number of the Saints. But, someone will perhaps say, even if it be so, and even if likewise, as will become clear from what is to be said below, nothing can be argued against the sanctity of Nectarius from Socrates and Sozomen, who attribute to him familiarity with the Novatians, still it does not yet follow from this that this Patriarch of Constantinople is to be held without doubt for a Saint, and that a place should therefore be given him as such in our Work. I admit it is so; but the Greeks, in two manuscript Synaxaria extant in our possession, one of which we are accustomed to call the Sirmondian, the other the Chiffletian, celebrate his annual memory on the 27th day of September, on which, from what is to be said below, Nectarius died; and the same is done on the 11th of October — most probably because at some time Nectarius enjoyed a cult on that day — not only again in the aforesaid Sirmondian Synaxarion, but also in the manuscript Menaea of the Ambrosian Library, and likewise in the great printed Menaea of the Greeks. These adorn Nectarius with the following two little verses, in which there is an allusion to the proper name Νεκταριὸς, derived from the common noun Νεκτὰρ, which is used in the fables of the poets to signify the drink of the gods:
Ὁ Νεκτάριος οὐ τὸ τοῦ μύθου, Λόγε, Ἀληθινὸν δὲ σῆς τρυφῆς νέκταρ πίνει.
Nectarius drinks not the nectar of fable, O Word of God, But the true nectar of your delights.
[11] Further, as the great printed Menaea of the Greeks just mentioned do, for the reason adduced here, is inserted so also Maximus Margunius, bishop of Cythera, who is accustomed to adhere closely to them, commemorates Nectarius today in the Menologion written in the vernacular tongue of the modern Greeks; and lest anyone should perhaps still hesitate whether this Patriarch of Constantinople is honoured as a Saint by the Greeks, not only in that Menologion but also in the Menaea a short prayer is set down, by which those who recite it ask that God be made propitious to them through the prayers of St. Nectarius. Now, since this is so, and since Nectarius therefore enjoys immemorial possession of cult among the Greeks, I would not dare to dislodge him from it. He is indeed inserted in no sacred Fasti of the Latins, and the Greeks sometimes reckon among the Saints even the unworthy, as is clear from the very sacred Fasti of the Greeks already cited, in which today, together with Sisinnius and Nectarius, there are listed either Arsacius, the latter's brother, or both him and Acacius, both of whom, as I have already noted among the Passed Over, are certainly to be erased from the number of the Saints; but if Nectarius ought on that account to be excluded from the number of the Saints, it will follow that no one inscribed in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks alone is to be reckoned among the Saints; and since that is not to be admitted, those inscribed even in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks alone are to be held for Saints, unless it be solidly proved that they deserve to be excluded from their number. Therefore, since as regards Nectarius this has not been done by the reasons adduced above, nor, as it appears, can be done by reasons sought elsewhere, I have judged that he — who is asserted by Gregory Nazianzen, a man very little accustomed to flattery, in the letter more than once cited above, to have shone with a virtue perfect in all its parts, and who is presented with the title of a most holy Man by St. Nicholas I, Pope, in the place cited above — is surely to be reckoned among the Saints, and, endowed among them with the title of Saint, to be inserted in our Work, although in the meantime he stands inscribed in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks alone.
§ II. When and in what manner Nectarius was elected, from a neophyte, bishop of Constantinople; he took care to be instructed in the matters of his office by an orthodox bishop, and did not take the Novatians into his counsel.
Nectarius in the year of Christ 381, suddenly, from a neophyte Around the middle of the year 381, in the Synod of Constantinople — to which, under the consuls Eucharius and Evagrius, as Socrates affirms in book 5, chapter 8, in the month of May, a hundred and fifty prelates had assembled, summoned by the emperor Theodosius, who had ordered the orthodox prelates of his empire to be called to Constantinople, both to confirm the decrees of the Council of Nicaea and to appoint a bishop of the church of Constantinople — St. Gregory Nazianzen had been elected bishop of the city of Constantinople by the votes of very many of the Eastern prelates, and amid the common joy of all had been placed on the throne of the church of Constantinople. But when shortly afterwards, disturbances having arisen, that Saint, for the sake of peace and concord, had voluntarily abdicated the dignity he had obtained, in the same synod in which he had received it, around the middle of the said year 381, Nectarius was elected in his place. The day on which this was done cannot indeed be determined; but that Nectarius was already sitting in the chair of Constantinople before the 30th day of July in the year 381 becomes plain from the Theodosian Code, book 16, title 1, law 3, in the posthumous edition of Jacques Godefroy, volume 6, pages 9 and 10. For there, in the constitution on the catholic faith which Theodosius issued on the 3rd day before the Kalends of August at Heraclea, Eucherius and Syagrius being consuls, that is, on the 30th day of July in the city of Heraclea in the year 381, mention is made, before the other prelates, of Nectarius * bishop of the church of Constantinople. From the time, thus fairly closely determined, at which Nectarius, while still only a neophyte, was suddenly elected bishop of Constantinople, I now turn my discourse to the manner in which that wonderful election came about.
[13] into the bishop of Constantinople, as is here narrated by Sozomen, Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 8, sets it out thus: At that time a certain Nectarius, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, a man of senatorial rank, was living at Constantinople; who, when he was already preparing to return to his homeland, went to Diodorus (then present, that is, at Constantinople, where he had come for the council), bishop of Tarsus, as though to carry letters, if he wished to write any to Tarsus. It happened that Diodorus was at that moment silently turning over in his own mind who in particular should be chosen for that ordination which was being sought with such great ambition. He, catching sight of Nectarius, judged him worthy of the episcopate, and at once in the inmost recess of his mind gave him his vote, considering the man's grey hair, his countenance worthy of the priesthood, and the sweetness of his manners. And so, as though for the sake of some other business, he brought him to the bishop of Antioch; and, praising him highly, begged the bishop to help him with his vote. But he, in a matter of such moment, where many illustrious men were being proposed for election, laughed at the vote of Diodorus. Nevertheless, having called Nectarius to him, he bade him wait a little while. Not long afterwards, when the emperor had ordered the bishops to write down on paper the names of those whom each judged worthy of the episcopate, and had reserved to himself the power of choosing one out of all, the others wrote down the names of various men; and the prelate of the church of Antioch also himself wrote those whom he wished; but last of all he added Nectarius, as a favour to Diodorus.
[14] The emperor therefore, having read through the little list of those who had been inscribed, is chosen in a wonderful manner, stopped at Nectarius, and with the eye of his mind intent took counsel with himself, his finger pressed upon the last name; and going back again to the top, when he had run through them all in order, he chose Nectarius. Then indeed amazement seized everyone, and they asked who and whence this Nectarius was, and what kind of life he followed. And when they had learned that he had not even been initiated by the sacred washing, they wondered all the more at the unexpected judgment of the prince. Diodorus too, as I think, was ignorant of this; for if he had known, he would never have dared to give his vote for the priesthood to a man not yet initiated; but, as is likely, he supposed that a man already grey had been baptized long ago. But these things did not happen without the will of God, since the emperor, after he had understood that he was without Baptism, remained in the same opinion, although many bishops opposed it. But after all had yielded and approved the emperor's opinion with their vote, he was baptized, and, still clothed in the garment of a Neophyte, was proclaimed bishop of Constantinople by the common vote of the whole council. Many moreover believed that these things were done thus by the emperor at God's bidding and command. But whether this be true or not, I cannot affirm with certainty. Yet I would persuade myself that it was not done without divine Providence, when I consider both the miracle of that ordination, and observe from what followed that God willed to confer this episcopate on a most gentle and excellent and most honourable man. And these things were done in the ordination of Nectarius as I have received them by hearsay.
[15] What Sozomen narrates in these words of the wonderful election of Nectarius as bishop of Constantinople, This, in which a divine prompting intervened, not a few ascribed, as he indicates towards the end, to a singular prompting of God. But, says Cuper in the Chronological History of the patriarchs of Constantinople praised above, number 133, in whatever manner that wonderful election was made, some … circumstances of the narration (namely that by which it is set out by Sozomen in the words just transcribed here) seem to us scarcely likely. I admit it; that narration does indeed contain some things which neither appear likely nor will easily find credence with just anyone; but what if in the election of Nectarius there did in fact intervene, as Sozomen affirms was believed by some, a singular prompting of God or a signification of the divine will? Truly, in this case, the things which would otherwise appear unlikely and incredible will no longer appear such. Cuper saw this, and hence, after he had the circumstances of the said narration which seem to him scarcely likely
set forth, speaks thus in the History just cited again, number 134: If the discourse here were of Ambrose of Milan or a similar catechumen, we would ascribe such a wonderful election to a singular signification of the divine will; but we do not see that the endowments of Nectarius before he received Baptism were such that recourse ought to be had here to a peculiar prompting of God. That the endowments of mind with which Nectarius was adorned before he received Baptism, and therefore before his election as bishop of Constantinople, were certainly not such as were those of Ambrose when he was created bishop of Milan from a catechumen, no one perhaps will deny; but that Nectarius did not indeed live rather intemperately up to the time when he was elected bishop is suggested by what I brought forward in numbers 5 and 6; and although Nectarius himself, in the words transcribed here at number 4, testifies in Sozomen that he did so in his youth, still it does not follow from this that for his wonderful election recourse cannot, and therefore ought not, be had to a peculiar prompting of God.
[16] it appears credible, not to have taken place, from the For why could not He who, willing Saul to be a vessel of election and his own name to be carried by him before kings and nations, suddenly made him an apostle out of a persecutor of the Church, and signified His will in this matter to Ananias in a wonderful manner — why could He not have willed that Nectarius, from a neophyte who had been of corrupt morals in his youth, be elected bishop of Constantinople, and have caused this His will to be put into execution by the emperor Theodosius through a peculiar prompting? But indeed, adds Cuper, if that election was made in so prodigious a manner or by divine prompting, it is surely strange that other writers of ecclesiastical History did not commit it to writing, while in the meantime they left to posterity much more trifling deeds of that time. I certainly wonder that all of these, and Socrates himself, who was both born and brought up at Constantinople, kept silence about the rare and wonderful manner in which Theodosius is narrated by Sozomen to have chosen Nectarius; but there is likewise reason why it should appear exceedingly wonderful to anyone that Nectarius was elected bishop of Constantinople even from a neophyte, and yet it is not to be called into doubt that Nectarius was truly elected bishop of Constantinople from a neophyte, even though in the meantime the matter is affirmed by Sozomen alone, the other writers who were either his equals or nearly contemporary with him keeping silence about it, since St. Ambrose, who had himself also been created bishop from a Neophyte, tacitly excuses his own ordination by the ordination of Nectarius from a Neophyte as bishop of Constantinople, in a letter written to the church of Vercelli in the year 396.
[17] [silence of writers, and from Socrates, who narrates that the thing was done otherwise,] As for the divine prompting by which the election of Nectarius was made, since this could easily have been either wholly unknown or not held as sufficiently ascertained, there is no reason why it should be believed not to have taken place because it is recorded by no writers of Ecclesiastical History, and is called into doubt by Sozomen himself, by whom it is reported to have been believed by some, as is clear from his words transcribed above. Socrates indeed, in the words transcribed here above at number 6, teaches only that Nectarius, who was mild in manners and altogether admirable in his whole life, was seized by the people to undertake the episcopal charge and was ordained bishop by the hundred and fifty bishops who were then present at Constantinople, no mention at all being made either of the wonderful manner in which Theodosius chose him as bishop, or of the divine prompting by which he did this; but although it be so, and it therefore appears not unlikely that Nectarius, on account of his gentle and winning way of acting, or the pleasing affability of his manners, was both sought as bishop by the people and that the bishops assented to this without difficulty, nothing nevertheless prevents both what is narrated by Sozomen and what is narrated by Socrates from being believed to have concurred in the election of Nectarius.
[18] For why could it not have come about that, when the declaration is not proved; by which Theodosius, though already informed that Nectarius was without Baptism, had proclaimed to the bishops that he nonetheless persisted in the election he had made of him as bishop, was carried to the people, the people seized Nectarius and, having brought him to the council, demanded that he be ordained bishop by the bishops, and that these at last did so, Baptism having first been conferred on him, in the presence of Theodosius, who from what has been said desired Nectarius as bishop no less than the people? I certainly do not see why not; wherefore, since authors who seem in some way to conflict among themselves are not to be set against one another but, if it can conveniently be done, to be reconciled, it is consonant with reason that, as both what Sozomen and what Socrates narrate can have concurred in the election of Nectarius, so also they should be believed actually to have concurred in it. The bishops who assembled again at Constantinople in the year next after the election of Nectarius, in their letter to Damasus and the other bishops throughout the West, giving at length an account of what had been done in the Synod of Constantinople, which is usually distinguished by the name of the second ecumenical, speak of the election of Nectarius in the following manner: Of the Church of Constantinople. … we appointed as bishop the most reverend and most holy Nectarius in the general council, by the common consent of all, in the presence of the most religious emperor Theodosius, and finally by the votes of the whole clergy and the whole city.
[19] So they, by no means preventing by these words of theirs both what is narrated about it by Sozomen and what by Socrates from being thought to have concurred in the election of Nectarius; but although it be not certain, but even if it be so, Sozomen himself brings it about that I do not judge, without all doubt, that all these things actually took place. For since he insinuates, towards the end of the words transcribed here at number 13 and following, that what he narrated of the ordination of Nectarius as bishop he did not draw from documents of approved trustworthiness but received only by hearsay, he gives occasion to suspect that all these things, as having been drawn perhaps from popular tradition alone, are not everywhere consonant with exact truth. Baronius no doubt saw this, and, not judging it likely that the most pious Theodosius arrogated to himself as much right in the election of Nectarius as Sozomen says, writes thus of it, in our volume 2 of May, in the Life of St. Gregory Nazianzen which he composed, number 148: But the bishops who remained in the council of Constantinople, after Theodosius had ratified the abdication of Gregory Nazianzen from the see of Constantinople, when they disagreed among themselves about substituting another in the place of Gregory, some favouring some and others others, at length, since there was no hope of concord that all would come together in the same opinion, it was decided that, the names of many having been written down, the matter should be referred to the emperor, to choose whom he wished from those noted. In the last place on the slip was written Nectarius, still a catechumen, a former prefect, for he had lately held the urban prefecture. Him, the rest being set aside, the emperor Theodosius chose. If therefore Baronius — who probably conjectured what he says here of the urban prefecture of Nectarius partly from Sozomen and partly from Socrates — records true things here, Theodosius chose Nectarius bishop of Constantinople by a right or power not which he had arrogated to himself, but which he had received from the council.
[20] Nectarius indeed lawful, But in whatever manner, finally, Nectarius was elected, whether by Theodosius, or by the council, or by the clergy and people, or lastly by all of these together, he was indeed the lawful bishop of the church of Constantinople. Nor can the contrary be proved from the second letter to the emperor Theodosius of the Italian council held in the year 381, a little after the Council of Constantinople mentioned above. In this letter indeed, in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils, column 1008, Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy in whose name it was written — since they still, as it appears, knew of the things done at Constantinople only from report — speak in the following manner: But since our mediocrity has lately learned that Nectarius has been ordained at Constantinople, we do not see that our communion coheres with the Eastern parts. Especially since Nectarius is said to have been forthwith left without the fellowship of communion by the very men by whom he had been ordained. No small scruple, therefore, is this. Nor does any contention about private zeal and ambition distress us, but communion loosed and dissociated troubles us. Nor do we see that it can otherwise be brought into accord, unless either he who was ordained first be restored to Constantinople, or at least there be a council of ourselves and the Easterners in the city of Rome concerning the ordination of the two; and thus they plainly reveal that they did not judge lawful the election by which Nectarius was promoted to the see of Constantinople, magnificently vaunted, in the words transcribed here at number 18, by the bishops who assembled at Constantinople in the year next following it.
[21] his election having been approved by Pope Damasus, But these, deceived by the lies and frauds of Maximus the Cynic philosopher, who had attempted to occupy the see of Constantinople by force, no doubt passed such a judgment, as it is easy to gather from what Cuper writes in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople praised above, number 119 and the two following. However that may be, not much time indeed elapsed before the Roman Pontiff Damasus granted what Theodosius himself, as we shall soon see, had judged to be required for the firmness of the election of Nectarius and for its being lawful. How this was done I set out. In Labbe, volume 4 of the Councils, there is extant a letter of Pope Boniface, in which, at column 1708 there, he writes thus to certain bishops of Macedonia and the neighbouring regions in the year 422: The prince Theodosius, of most clement memory, not judging that the ordination of Nectarius had firmness, because it had not been within our knowledge, sent courtiers from his side together with bishops and demanded that a formata (that is, letters indicating communion) be directed to him in due form by the Roman See. Theodosius therefore, who, as is understood from these words of Boniface, judged the election of Nectarius not firm enough because it had been carried out without the knowledge and consent of the Roman See, requested that it be strengthened or confirmed by the same See, by sending to Pope Damasus an embassy composed of courtiers and bishops. Nor do the words transcribed here at number 2 from the letter of Pope Nicholas I to Photius allow us to doubt that he complied with the emperor's request. For in it that holy Pontiff excuses the promotion of Nectarius on account of the immense necessity by which the church of Constantinople had been pressed, which he would by no means have done unless it had been approved by the Apostolic See.
[22] But was it before or after the letter written to Damasus and the other Western bishops by the bishops who assembled at Constantinople in the year next after the promotion of Nectarius he was bishop of the church of Constantinople, that the Apostolic See ratified it? In that letter, as will become plain to anyone unrolling it in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 9, there occurs no mention at all of the necessity on account of which Nectarius was promoted from the lay state to the priestly order; and since nevertheless the promotion of Nectarius was, from what has already been said,
approved by the Apostolic See on account of such an excuse of necessity, this excuse was most probably adduced by the bishops who formed part of the embassy of Theodosius to Pope Damasus mentioned above; wherefore, since this said letter of the Eastern bishops to Damasus was undoubtedly earlier, the approval of the promotion of Nectarius by the Apostolic See, which from what has been said was made on account of the excuse adduced by the bishops of that embassy, most probably was also earlier than it. But let what has just been said of the wonderful promotion of Nectarius to the see of Constantinople, and of the approval of it made by Pope Damasus — which, as it is easy to gather from what has been said, most probably took place either in the very year 381 in which the council of Constantinople was held, or certainly not long after — suffice to make it plain that Nectarius was the lawful bishop of the church of Constantinople. I turn my discourse to what Nectarius did when already bishop.
[23] Nectarius, who knew that he possessed neither sufficient experience of ecclesiastical affairs [And having used a thoroughly orthodox instructor, of the conference of Constantinople] nor learning equal to discharging worthily the most exalted office to which he had unexpectedly been raised, prudently and providently asked Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus — who, as the words of Sozomen transcribed here at number 13 make plain, had contributed very greatly to his election as bishop of Constantinople — that Cyriacus, a thoroughly orthodox bishop of Adana, by whom he might be imbued with the knowledge of matters pertaining to his priestly office, should remain with him at Constantinople for some time longer, the council of Constantinople being now finished; and, as Sozomen testifies in the words recited at number 4, he, himself a Cilician, besides drew many other Cilicians to stay with him and, as appears likely, to devote their labour to him in governing the church of Constantinople. Nor indeed — whence also his prudence in doing what I have just said is to be praised — had Nectarius occupied the see of Constantinople very long when he stood in the greatest need both of learning himself and of the counsel and help of all the more learned. On what occasion this happened you will soon understand from what is now to be brought forward here. Sozomen, in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 12, writes thus: The emperor … Theodosius, a short time (that is, scarcely two years) having elapsed after the former synod (namely that of Constantinople, held, as has been said, in the year 381), again convoked the leaders of the sects which were then most flourishing, that they might give or receive an account concerning the matters on account of which they disagreed. For he hoped that he would bring it about that all should agree among themselves, if he had proposed to them a common disputation on the controversies of the faith.
[24] of which notice is here given from Sozomen, When therefore they had assembled, Merobaudes for the second time and Saturninus being consuls, in which year (namely 383, which is designated thus) Theodosius joined to himself his son Arcadius as partner of the empire, the emperor, having summoned Nectarius to him, communicated with him about the coming synod, and ordered him to propose for discussion the questions from which the heresies had arisen, so that there might be one church of those who believe in Christ, and a concordant doctrine of the faith might be established. Then Nectarius, having returned home, being distressed by various cares, disclosed the emperor's plan to Agelius, bishop of the Novatians, as one who held the same faith as himself (namely in those things which pertained to the Nicene Creed). But Agelius, being one who professed holiness of life by his very deeds, but was little practised in speaking and disputing, proposed another in his place, who was exceedingly skilled both in discerning what was to be done and in disputing, if need be, Sisinnius by name, who was then indeed a lector under him, but afterwards was bishop of the Novatians in the same place; a man endowed with power of understanding and copiousness of speech, who had accurately learned the expositions of the sacred books and had manifold knowledge of the things which had been written both by pagan and by ecclesiastical authors. He, seeming to give the most correct counsel for the place and time, advised that they should avoid disputations with the heretics, as kindling-wood of contention and discord, and should rather ask them whether they admitted those doctors and interpreters of the sacred Scriptures who had lived before the division of the Church. For, he said, if they reject their testimonies, they will be hissed off by their own associates; but if they judge them fit for settling controversies, their books are to be produced. For he knew well that the ancients, who had found that the Son was believed to be co-eternal with the Father, had never dared to say that He had any beginning of His generation.
[25] on which occasion the two Novatians are said to have been taken into counsel When therefore this had pleased Nectarius, and the emperor, having been informed, had approved the plan, he began to sound the minds of the heretics as to what they themselves thought of the interpretations of the ancients. And when they had greatly praised them, the emperor asked them more openly whether they would decide the controversies from the sayings of those men, and whether they judged them fit witnesses of doctrine. But when dissension had arisen on this matter too among the leaders of the sects — for not all thought the same about the books of the ancients — the emperor understood that they, trusting in the altercations of their opinions, were refusing the proposed condition; and, condemning their counsel, he ordered each sect to hand him a formula of its faith comprised in writing. After the day dawned which had been appointed for this business, there came together into the palace, for those who professed the consubstantial Trinity, Nectarius and Agelius; for the Arians, Demophilus, the prelate of that sect; for the Eunomians, Eunomius himself; and for those who are called Macedonians, Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus. Then, having received the pamphlets of each, the emperor approved that formula of faith alone which asserted the consubstantial Trinity; the rest he tore up as adverse to it. And to the Novatians indeed nothing happened from this business contrary to their wish. For they think the same as the Catholic Church concerning the Divinity. But the rest were angry with their bishops because before the emperor they had spoken unskilfully things conflicting with and contrary to one another. Many too, condemning them, transferred themselves to that faith which had been approved. Moreover, the emperor by a law enacted ordered that the heretics should not hold gatherings, nor teach concerning the faith, nor ordain bishops or others; and that some should be driven from the cities and the fields, while others should be marked with infamy and should not possess equal right of citizenship with the other citizens. And he did indeed write heavy penalties into his laws; yet he by no means put them into execution. For he was eager not to punish his subjects, but only to frighten them, that they might think the same as he concerning the Divinity. For he also praised those who were converted of their own accord.
[26] All this, thus far, is Sozomen; and Socrates also relates the same things, and indeed somewhat more fully, in book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, [on the occasion of the conference, by Socrates and Sozomen, rejected here for that reason by Baronius] chapter 10, adding towards the end that Theodosius thereafter favoured the Novatians, because he had found their faith consonant with the faith of the Catholics concerning the consubstantiality of the Most Holy Trinity, and decreed by a law enacted that they might both possess their oratories without fear and enjoy the same privileges as the Catholics. If therefore those two writers are to be assented to here, Theodosius, desiring to bring all the heretics to one and the same Catholic faith, called to a synod the chief champions of the various heresies or sects; and when these — namely, for the Arians Demophilus, for the Eunomians Eunomius himself, and for those who were called Macedonians Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus — had assembled at Constantinople, Merobaudes for the second time and Saturninus being consuls, that is, in the year 383, and indeed, as Socrates adds, in the month of June, Nectarius, ordered by the emperor to propose for discussion, or to submit to examination by which a concordant doctrine of the faith might be established, the questions from which the heresies had arisen, took into his counsel, in a matter of such moment by which he was most greatly distressed, only two Novatians, namely the bishop Agelius and his lector, Sisinnius by name, with a success that was indeed happy in some fashion, as those two writers set it out, but nevertheless shameful to that extent.
[27] But Baronius — who, contrary to what Socrates and Sozomen seem to insinuate, was persuaded, and indeed with good reason from what is to be said below, that several Catholic bishops also took part in the synod or conference mentioned by them, and moreover that Nectarius alone of the orthodox took part in that conference, and that therefore Nectarius was not the only one of the orthodox to have a part in it — having brought into his Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 383, number 16 and the two following, almost the entire text of Sozomen, which I have already recited from Valesius's version, from Christophorson's version, then proceeds thus: But since the credit of heretics is suspect when they affirm anything about their own dogmas and their followers, all this which he says of Nectarius — that in a cause of such moment he consulted a Novatian bishop, and, to use that expression, as if there were no God in Israel, went to the God of Accaron — is rendered equally doubtful to us, nay, to speak more truly, is convicted of being a lie. Who would persuade himself that to that synod, in which the stronger champions of the heresies were to be heard, Catholic bishops who excelled the rest in learning were not called by Theodosius, as, among others, Gregory of Nyssa, who it is agreed was not only surviving at this time but lived many years more; Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, equally eloquent; Diodorus of Tarsus, the same who was devoted to Nectarius; and those very men whom the same Diodorus had given to the same Nectarius as counsellors and teachers in the divine letters; to pass over Evagrius, left behind by Gregory Nazianzen, and many others with whom the synod is believed to have abounded, all of whom would surpass the decrepit old man Agelius and the young Sysinnius in learning and experience of affairs? Who then could persuade himself that, all these being set aside, Nectarius met with the Novatian heretics and administered so great a matter solely at their prescription, and that in so great a business, the rest keeping silence, Nectarius alone was permitted to hold discourse with the standard-bearers of the heretics?
[28] and that Nectarius alone of the orthodox took part in that conference, So the praised father of the Ecclesiastical Annals; who, although he draws between Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius the comparison, little honourable to the latter, which I set out above at number 3, and in more than one place adduces things not at all suited to praising Nectarius, is certainly not to be thought to have rejected Sozomen and Socrates in the words just given out of a perverse affection or excessive favour towards him; and although, contrary to what he supposed, these two were not heretics but, as Valesius showed before their Works, edited by him in Greek and Latin, orthodox, nevertheless, as Bellarmine says in On Ecclesiastical Writers, and Valesius himself does not deny, they are recognized to have favoured the Novatians, and this suffices to lessen their credibility in the things which they record in praise of those heretics. And indeed, when they insinuate that no orthodox bishops took part in the synod or conference of Constantinople of which we are speaking here, except Nectarius alone, it will become plain from what is now to be said that they — and by name Socrates, when he further affirms that a law was enacted by Theodosius in favour of the Novatians after the synod was finished — can surely not be safely believed. The emperor Theodosius, who, as has been said, had assembled that synod or council in order to unite all the heretics under one faith, endeavoured to bind to himself by good offices those whom he had called to him; and since he seemed to deal with them more indulgently than was fitting, the orthodox thereupon, fearing namely lest the emperor, circumvented by their cunning, should slip headlong into heresy,
were not a little disturbed.
[29] falsely without doubt, as from those things which So, more or less, the same Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 383, number 20; who then, having stated beforehand that the emperor was for that reason rebuked by Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, both by deeds and by words, sets out how the thing was done in the very words which Theodoret supplies in book 5, chapter 16, from Christophorson's version — for which I substitute these following, which Valesius's version presents: Having entered … again (Amphilochius) into the palace, when he had seen the son Arcadius standing beside the emperor, whom he had a little before proclaimed Augustus, he saluted the emperor himself indeed in the accustomed manner, but dismissed the son without honour. The emperor, thinking this had been done by Amphilochius through forgetfulness, bade him approach and kiss his son. But Amphilochius said that the honour he had shown to him himself was sufficient for him. The emperor, taking this ill, said that contempt of his son was an injury to himself. Then indeed the most wise Amphilochius disclosed the reason for his deed, and said with raised voice: You see, emperor, that you cannot bear an affront to your son, but are angry with those who offer him an affront. Believe therefore that the God of this universe also turns away from those who blaspheme His only-begotten Son, and holds them in hatred as ungrateful toward the Saviour and their benefactor. The matter being understood in this way, the emperor, greatly admiring both the saying and the deed of Amphilochius, forthwith gave a law by which the conventicles of the heretics were forbidden.
[30] Theodoret indeed reports, towards the beginning of the chapter just cited, that this deed of Amphilochius happened only when Theodosius are brought forward here had returned from the West to Constantinople after the slaying of the tyrant Maximus; but since Theodosius returned from the West to Constantinople, the tyrant Maximus having been slain, only in the year 391, as may be seen in Pagi's Critica, and since the narration of Theodoret just given implies that the deed of Amphilochius already related took place when Arcadius had not long been proclaimed Augustus by Theodosius — which, as Socrates teaches in the Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 10, happened when Merobaudes for the second time and Saturninus were consuls, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of February, and therefore in the year 383 on the 16th day of January — it is necessary that the deed of Amphilochius of which we speak here happened in the year 383, nay rather at the time of the council of Constantinople which, from what has been said above, was celebrated for the peace of the Church in that year, in the month of June, and therefore not long after Arcadius had been proclaimed Augustus by Theodosius. There will perhaps be someone who will reply that what Theodoret affirms at the beginning of the said chapter is rather to be believed than what he affirms afterwards in the narration given in the number immediately preceding, and that therefore the deed of Amphilochius of which we speak here is to be assigned, not to the year 383, or the time when Arcadius had not long been created Augustus by Theodosius, but to the year 391, or the time only when Theodosius had returned from the West to Constantinople after the slaying of the tyrant Maximus.
[31] But the words of Theodoret with which the said narration is ended prevent this from being possible. are brought forward, For in them it is expressly related that immediately after the deed of Amphilochius which it sets out, a law was enacted by Theodosius by which the conventicles of the heretics were forbidden; wherefore, since in the Theodosian Code, book 16, title 5, on heretics, by law XI — which is noted as given to Postumianus, praetorian prefect, on the 8th day before the Kalends of August, at Constantinople, Merobaudes for the second time and Saturninus being consuls, and therefore on the 25th day of July in the year 383 — it is commanded by Theodosius to all heretics without exception that they assemble in no circles, gather no multitude, draw no people to themselves; and since no law of this kind is found which was enacted in the East by Theodosius in the year 391, after his return to Constantinople following the slaying of Maximus — it follows that the deed of Amphilochius related above, after which Theodoret relates that a law was forthwith enacted by Theodosius by which the conventicles of the heretics were forbidden, without doubt happened in the year 383, and indeed before the 25th day of July of that year, on which, from what has been said, the law forbidding the conventicles of the heretics was enacted by Theodosius. Now, since it is so, and Amphilochius at the time when that deed took place was staying at Constantinople, and indeed in the emperor's palace, as Theodoret witnesses, who would deny that he then, or in the year 383, took part in the council celebrated there for the peace of the Church? Nor is it only Amphilochius, but several other orthodox bishops too, who may be gathered to have taken part in the same council, from two letters, of which one is 71st and the other 72nd in order, written by Gregory Nazianzen to Postumianus, praetorian prefect in the year 383, and to Saturninus, who in the same year held the consulship with Merobaudes.
[32] it becomes plain, insinuating, For in the former of these Gregory writes thus to Postumianus: Think nothing so befitting to your authority (since again a synod of bishops is being held, who come together for I know not what cause or in what manner) as that under your prefecture and by your efforts the churches be brought back to peace, even if it be necessary to rebuke more openly those who contend in dissensions and factions. And if I seem to anyone too inquisitive, because, though I have withdrawn from affairs, I have nevertheless not cast off care and solicitude, remember this: that we have withdrawn from the throne and from a haughty brow, but not likewise from piety. Nay rather, I seem to myself likely to have all the greater credit and authority with you, as one who cares not for my private affair but for the public advantage; while in the latter, to Saturninus the consular, he records these following, some other things being set before: All things with us, by the Benefit of God, are well, this one thing excepted, that we are anxious and solicitous about the churches so foully disturbed. Whatever work you can bring to these for the common concord, set yourself to it unweariedly both in deed and in word. Since the bishops are again coming together, it is again to be feared lest now too they be covered with shame, if this synod also has a not very glorious end, as the former one did. Since therefore Gregory, as is clear from these words which he uses in the two letters just mentioned, is solicitous about the happy success of the synod which was then, that is in the year 383, being held, and certainly, had it been held by Heterodox bishops only, would not have been so affected in mind, without doubt among the bishops whom he says were coming together to it there were some orthodox; and it is therefore certainly foreign to the truth that Nectarius alone of the orthodox took part in that synod or council, as Socrates and Sozomen insinuate.
[33] is wrongly asserted. And this indeed, as I have already hinted above, is common to the one as much as to the other of these writers; but that on the occasion of the council of Constantinople celebrated in the year 383 for the peace of the Church it was decreed by Theodosius by a law enacted that the Novatians might possess their churches or oratories without any fear and enjoy the same privileges as the Catholics, Socrates moreover, as I have already noted above, and indeed he alone, affirms; and this appears likewise foreign to the truth. I judge so, first indeed, because Sozomen does not say that such a law was then enacted by Theodosius; and then, because in the Theodosian Code as edited by Godefroy no law of this kind is anywhere found either. In the law of the same code given in the year 383 on the twenty-fifth day of July, by which the heretics are forbidden to hold assemblies and the sects of those to whom this is forbidden are expressed by name, no mention indeed occurs of the Novatians; but although it can indeed be inferred from this that the very thing which was forbidden to the other heretics was not forbidden to the Novatians, it cannot however also be inferred that a law came forth by order of Theodosius in their favour, by which they might both possess their own oratories and enjoy the same privileges as the Catholics. Now, since it is so, and therefore both Socrates and Sozomen do not deserve entire credit in what they say of the synod convoked by Theodosius in the year 383 for procuring the peace of the Church, there is also no reason why, moved by their authority, we should believe that two Novatian heretics, namely the bishop Agelius and his deacon Sisinnius, were then taken into counsel by Nectarius, all the orthodox being neglected; and we are therefore not at all afraid to reject with Baronius what they say on this matter as certainly wrongly asserted by them, although in the meantime the thing is also asserted by Nicephorus Callistus, following Socrates and Sozomen here, as very often elsewhere, in the Ecclesiastical History, book 12, chapter 15. Let us now proceed to the matters later than the said synod or conference of Constantinople and in any way pertaining to Nectarius, which I have resolved to set out in the following §.
Annotata* read Nectarii
§ III. Nectarius is admonished by Gregory Nazianzen by letter to stir up the emperor against the Apollinarists; when he received it, when he afterwards died, what more he did, and what he brought about by abolishing the penitentiary presbyter.
Nectarius, who by Nazianzen by a letter either in the year Theodosius, in the same year 383 in which the synod or conference mentioned above was held at Constantinople, gave two rescripts to Posthumianus, praetorian prefect, against all the heresies which were then raging. By these, decreeing that the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Encratites, Apotactites, Saccophori, and Hydroparastatae were to be driven from the city and the fields, he moreover took from them all power of holding assemblies and forbade the ordination of ministers. But when afterwards, these laws of the emperor being despised, heretics of every kind nonetheless lived freely at Constantinople and held conventicles, Gregory Nazianzen wrote to Nectarius a lengthy letter, which stands inserted in volume 1 of his Works from page 721, by which he spurred him on, gently and at the same time forcefully, to stir up the emperor to curb the Apollinarists. That from that letter, which I have already partly transcribed above, it is not validly proved that Nectarius is not to be reckoned among the Saints, what I discussed on this argument in that place shows plainly, unless I am mistaken. But when it befell Nectarius to be admonished by it by Gregory has not yet been determined, and it pleases me therefore to do so here now. Baronius seems to have judged, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the said year, number 32, that this admonitory letter to Nectarius was written either in the year 384 or even before it; but afterwards, as it appears, having changed his opinion, he judged that it was done later, in the Life of St. Gregory Nazianzen which he composed, inserted in volume 2 of May of our Work, number 165; and this later opinion of his seems to be embraced, as will become plain from what is now to be said.
[35] as from the fact that it, to the second of the two which are recited here, In the Theodosian Code, book 16, title [ ] on Heretics, there are extant two laws of Theodosius against them, of which one is noted as given on the 12th day before the Kalends of February at Constantinople, Richomer and Clearchus being consuls, that is, on the 21st day of January in the year 384; the other on the 6th day before the Ides of March at Thessalonica, Theodosius Augustus for the second time and Cynegius being consuls, that is, on the 10th day of March in the year 388. That Theodosius was impelled to enact one or the other of these laws by the said letter of Gregory Nazianzen to Nectarius appears beyond doubt. So that the year, therefore, in which about
this letter was written, and therefore in which it befell Nectarius to be admonished by Gregory Nazianzen, may become known, it is to be settled here whether Theodosius was moved by it to enact the first or the second of the said laws. To do this, I transcribe both of them here, so that they may conveniently be compared by the reader with the chief heads of Gregory's letter, to be mentioned here below, and so it may be determined which of the two Theodosius was impelled by it to enact. The former runs thus: The Eunomians, Macedonians, Arians, and also Apollinarians are, among the offices of sacred religion, names notorious for their errors. All therefore who have claimed for themselves either the pontificate or the ministry of these professions; who assert themselves priests of a banished name; and who take upon themselves the name of ministers in a criminal religion; who say that they teach what it is shameful either not to know or to learn — all the hiding-places of this city having been searched with a more inquisitive investigation — are to be driven out without any intervention of favour; let them live in other places, and be wholly separated from the assemblies of good men. Given on the 12th day before the Kalends of February, etc. But the latter is framed in these words: We command that the Apollinarians and the other followers of the various heresies be debarred from all places, from the walls of cities, from the assembly of honourable men, from the communion of the Saints; let them not have the power of instituting clerics; let them be without the faculty of gathering congregations either in public or in private churches; let no authority be granted them of making bishops; let the bishops themselves too, deprived of the name, lose the appellation of this dignity; let them go to places which may most especially shut them off, as it were by a rampart, from human communion. To these we also join this, that to all those mentioned above access to approach and petition our serenity be denied. Given on the 6th day before the Ides of March, etc.
[36] to enact laws Theodosius was impelled. Such are the two laws of Theodosius which I thought fit to transcribe here; while of the letter of Nazianzen to Nectarius, by which the emperor was impelled to enact one or the other of them, there are three chief heads, of which Gregory complains most of all. Of these the first is the arrogance and audacity with which the Arians gathered churches or congregations, as though a faculty had been granted them for this; the second, the rashness with which the Macedonians had gone so far as even to assume to themselves the name of bishops and to lift up their heads; and the third, finally, the faculty of holding assemblies granted to the Apollinarists, which Gregory most vehemently exhorts Nectarius to induce the emperor to revoke, or to forbid assemblies again to these heretics. Compare now these with the two laws of Theodosius just transcribed here, and you will see that Theodosius was moved by Gregory's letter certainly not to enact the first of them — as having been enacted by Theodosius, when he had learned that the priests and ministers of the Eunomians, Macedonians, Arians, and Apollinarians, ordered by a rescript given in the year 383 on the third day of September to migrate to their own lands, were still lurking in Constantinople, solely so that these, sought out by a more inquisitive investigation, might be expelled from the city — but to enact the second, as being one by which the faculty of gathering congregations or holding assemblies, and the authority of making bishops and of distinguishing those who had already been raised to that dignity with the appellation of bishops, is taken away from all heretics, and by name from the Apollinarists.
[37] Now, since it is so, and the former of the two said laws was enacted in the year 384, it is drawn out, written in 388 or a little earlier, admonished of his duty, the latter in the year 388, as I have already shown, it follows that Gregory's letter, by which, from what has been said, Theodosius was moved to enact not the former but the latter, was most probably written not before the year 384, but either in the very year 388 or only somewhat earlier. It may indeed be replied that the latter of the two said laws of Theodosius is noted as given at Thessalonica, and that this emperor had already gone from Constantinople to that place from the year 387, and that it therefore appears necessary that Gregory's letter — as being one by which, when shown to him by Nectarius, Theodosius, as has been said, was moved to enact that law — was written not in the year 388, but in the year either immediately preceding this or in another still earlier. But why could it not have come about that Nectarius took care that the letter, sent to him at Constantinople by Gregory only in the year 388, be shown to Theodosius, even though he was then no longer at Constantinople but at Thessalonica, a letter also being added in which he requested that what Nectarius sought be put into execution by Theodosius? However that may be, that that letter was written, if not in the year 388, at least in a year not long before, appears likely to me even from this, that he was, from what has been said, induced by it to enact the law which is noted as given in the year 388; and this could be said with scarcely any appearance of truth if that letter had been written long before this was enacted, that is, before the year 388.
[38] What therefore is drawn out of this same letter of Gregory Nazianzen to Nectarius concerning Nectarius being admonished of his duty by him he afterwards discharged this vigorously, at Constantinople most probably happened around the year 388; and that Nectarius most probably performed what he was stirred up to by it from Gregory is suggested, besides what has been said, also by two letters of this holy father, of which one is numbered 226 and the other 227 by Billius in the edition of the Works of Gregory Nazianzen. For in these Gregory reveals that Nectarius was always ready to gratify him. Nor does what I adduced above at number 9 allow it to be doubted that Nectarius, after receiving from Gregory the monitory letter of which I have spoken, always opposed himself most strongly to the heretics. How he did this, indeed, and what else he did gloriously, I am not able to declare one by one, since all the ancient writers who speak of Nectarius do so only sparingly; but although it be so, two things more, drawn from sources also of approved trustworthiness, occur here to be recorded of Nectarius besides what has been said. I take my beginning from that which preceded in time. In the church of Constantinople and other Eastern churches there was a presbyter placed over those doing penance; but Nectarius removed or abolished him in the church of Constantinople. So, namely, Socrates and Sozomen — the former in the Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 19, the latter in book 7, chapter 16 — hand down to memory, adding also the cause on account of which this was done, Nicephorus Callistus also agreeing with them. I transcribe here in advance all the words in which Socrates does this, intending afterwards to recite also in part, in the course of the discussion, what Sozomen supplies, when I shall have judged it to the purpose. But before I do so, I determine from Socrates and Sozomen about when the thing was done.
[39] about the year, as is proved, 390, the penitentiary presbyter, The former, having narrated the return of Theodosius from the West to Constantinople after the slaying of the tyrant Maximus, presently adds: About the same time it was resolved that the presbyters of the churches who presided over penance should be abolished; while Sozomen, having related the martyrdom of St. Marcellus, bishop of Apamea, who has already been brought into our Work at the 14th day of August, then proceeds thus: About the same time Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, was the first to remove from the church that presbyter who had been set over the penitents. Since therefore the return of Theodosius to Constantinople after the slaying of the tyrant Maximus happened, as Socrates testifies, under the consulship of Tatian and Symmachus, and therefore in the year 391, while the martyrdom of Marcellus happened about the year 389, as may be seen in our Work at the place just cited, it follows that it befell the penitentiary presbyter to be abolished by Nectarius at Constantinople around the year 391, if Socrates is to be followed, but in the year 389, if Sozomen. However, since the phrase by which Sozomen says this happened "about the same time" as the martyrdom of Marcellus seems in some way to admit some latitude — though not as certainly as the phrase "about the same time" used by Socrates — and therefore to be capable of being extended as much to the year 390 as to the year 389, it seems to me better that that event be assigned not to the latter year rather than to the year 391, but to about the year 390, especially since thus, even if it in fact took place in the year 389, we shall not depart from the truth, nor establish anything which conflicts either with Socrates or with Sozomen. And thus have I now in some fashion defined the time about which it befell the penitentiary presbyter to be abolished at Constantinople by Nectarius; now let us hear Socrates, at the place cited above, setting out for what cause this was done by Nectarius, and adding some other things in some way pertaining to it.
[40] [as is here narrated by Socrates, the cause also on account of which he did it being added, he removed,] After the Novatians, he says, had separated themselves from the Church because they were unwilling to communicate with those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution, from that time the bishops added to the ecclesiastical roll a penitentiary presbyter, so that those who had lapsed after Baptism might confess their offences before a presbyter appointed for that purpose. And among the other sects indeed this rule still persists; but only the Homoousians and the Novatians, who agree with them in faith, rejected the presbyter set over penance. For the Novatians did not admit this supplement even at the beginning. But the Homoousians, who now hold the churches, after they had long retained this institution, at length abrogated it in the times of the bishop Nectarius, on account of a certain crime which had been committed in the Church. A certain noble woman, coming to the penitentiary presbyter, had confessed one by one the offences committed by her after Baptism. The presbyter instructed the woman to devote herself to continual fasts and prayers, so that, namely, together with the confession of her offences she might show also a fitting work of penance. In the course of time the woman confessed another crime, namely that a deacon of the church had had a habit of illicit intercourse with her. When she had said this, the deacon was indeed cast out of the Church; but the people began to be gravely stirred. For they were indignant not only on account of the crime which had been committed, but also because no small stain and infamy seemed to have been sprinkled on the Church by this deed.
[41] When therefore churchmen were assailed with gibes for that cause, is here narrated, a certain Eudaemon, a presbyter of the Church, a native of Alexandria, persuaded the bishop Nectarius to strike out the penitentiary presbyter, and to allow each one to approach the communion of the Sacraments according to his own judgment and the conscience of his own mind. For otherwise it could not be brought about that the Church should be free from all reproach. Since I received these things from Eudaemon himself, I did not at all hesitate to insert them in this History. For, as I have often said, I have devoted all care and diligence to learning the things done from those who knew them best, and to examining them accurately, lest I commit to writing anything foreign to the truth. And at the beginning indeed I said this to Eudaemon: Whether your counsel, O presbyter, has profited the Church or not, God will see. But I see that occasion has been given by it to each one no longer to reprove one another's offences, nor to observe that precept of the Apostle which runs thus: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Valesius, in his Annotations on the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, observes thus on this chapter in which the penitentiary presbyter is related to have been removed at Constantinople by Nectarius: There is no place in Ecclesiastical History which
has exercised the wits of learned men more than this one about the penitentiary presbyter removed at Constantinople. And, as usually happens, each one, according to his own worship and religion, has brought forward various interpretations of that passage.
[42] So he, then adding what he judges should above all be discussed and observed in this controversy; and so, since the office, by that presbyter, according to the ancient but since we treat here of the penitentiary presbyter removed at Constantinople only so far as that deed pertains to Nectarius, we must chiefly examine what Nectarius removed by it — and therefore whether it was confession or penance, and of what kind — and likewise whether in doing so he merited praise or reproof. To approach the matter itself now at once: what then did Nectarius do by abolishing the penitentiary presbyter? Socrates, towards the beginning of the words just transcribed here, reveals not obscurely that from the time when the Novatians separated themselves from the Church, which was done around the middle of the third century, a certain presbyter, to preside over the penitents, was appointed in each church. Not a little, therefore, will knowledge of the office or charge which that presbyter discharged contribute to defining what Nectarius did by abolishing the penitentiary presbyter. Into this, therefore, let us before all else inquire here. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 16, writes thus according to the translation of Valesius: Since to sin in nothing at all belongs to a certain more divine nature, and one more excellent than the human; and since God has commanded that pardon be given to the penitent, even if they have offended often; and since in asking pardon it is necessarily required to confess the sin, it seemed from the beginning to the priests grave and burdensome to publish their crimes as in a theatre, with the multitude of the whole church standing around.
[43] who, not as Nicephorus, but as Cassiodorus, from the codex of Sozomen Therefore they set over this office one of the presbyters who was most approved for integrity of life and strong in silence and prudence; to whom those who had offended came and confessed their acts; and he, according to each one's offence, enjoining by way of penalty what each ought either to do or to pay, absolved those confessing, who were to exact the penalties of their crimes from themselves. Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History, book 12, chapter 28, in the text which corresponds to this text of Sozomen, also agrees with it exactly as to substance, and the same is to be said of Christophorson; so that, if one looks to the Greek copies of Sozomen which guided Nicephorus, Christophorson, and Valesius, it is to be believed that the first bishops of the Church, or, on account of what has been said, those who flourished after the Novatian heresy arose, did not wish sins to be recited publicly as in a theatre. But Cassiodorus, in the Tripartite History, differs not a little from the three interpreters of Sozomen already mentioned, and thus renders his words already recited: Since never to sin at all is known to be divine and beyond human nature, while God has commanded that pardon be given to those who sin and do penance; and those who shun confessing acquire a greater burden of sins; therefore it seemed good to the ancient pontiffs that offences be laid open as in a theatre, under the witness of the people of the church; and for this purpose they appointed a presbyter of good conversation, one keeping secrets, and a wise man, to whom those who had offended came and acknowledged their own offences, etc.; and thus it is clearly signified that the ancient bishops of whom I have spoken wished sins to be laid open to the penitentiary presbyter publicly and as in a theatre.
[44] indicates from the codex he had before his eyes, more probably wished, But is one to stand by this interpretation of Sozomen which Cassiodorus supplies, or by the other, by which it is no less clearly indicated that the bishops did not wish this, alleged in the number immediately preceding from Valesius and founded also in Nicephorus Callistus? This appears very doubtful; and hence what the charge of the penitentiary presbyter mentioned by Sozomen was — or whether it belonged to his part to receive the public confessions of the penitents and to enjoin public penalties on them — cannot be declared for certain. However, since Cassiodorus flourished not long after Sozomen's age, while Nicephorus is more than 800 years later than Sozomen, the codex of Sozomen which guided Cassiodorus, or Epiphanius, who first put together the Tripartite History, was probably more entire and uncorrupted than that which guided Nicephorus, Christophorson, and Valesius. Wherefore the interpretation of Sozomen through Cassiodorus, by which it is signified that the ancient bishops wished sins to be laid open publicly as in a theatre, seems to be preferred to the interpretation of the same Sozomen through Valesius, by which the contrary is indicated, even though founded in Nicephorus — especially since John Chrysostom also supports it not obscurely, as one who, in Homily 5 on the incomprehensible nature of God, Homily 4 on Lazarus, Homily 8 on penance, and the Homily on the Publican on chapter 18 of Luke, openly alluding to the deed of Nectarius, his immediate predecessor in the see of Constantinople, and to the abrogation of the ancient constitution of the bishops, repeats everywhere that it is no longer necessary that sins be laid open as in a theatre. And indeed it may be gathered from Socrates and Sozomen, to whom Nicephorus too may be added, that at least public sins (for if hidden ones too had to be published, the penitentiary presbyter would not have needed to be retentive of secrets and silent) had to be laid open publicly and as in a theatre by the penitents, either of their own accord or by the command of the penitentiary presbyter to whom they had confessed them.
[45] For when they reprehend Nectarius because he removed the penitentiary presbyter, the constitution of the bishops, in the words of Bellarmine they indicate that they do so, first, because, he being removed, men could no longer reprove one another's sins according to that saying of the Apostle: Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; and then, because, the bridle of public shame being removed, more and greater sins were then committed than formerly: causes which undoubtedly require that at least public sins were to be declared publicly before the people by the penitents, either of their own accord or by the command of the penitentiary presbyter, formerly appointed by the bishops, to whom they had confessed them. Bellarmine, in volume 3 of the Disputations on the controversies of the Christian faith, book 3, chapter 14, having set out these and other things which pertain to this argument more fully, first proves most plainly two things which also bear on it, namely that the ancient bishops, by their constitution concerning the penitentiary presbyter, subjected to public confession not hidden but only public sins, and that he was set not over all the faithful who in any way did penance, but over the public penitents alone; and then proceeds thus: From what has been said thus far we gather that the constitution of the bishops of which the historians (namely Socrates, Sozomen, and Nicephorus, in the places cited above) speak, comprised only this: that those who had lapsed publicly after Baptism should not approach the sacred Eucharist unless they had confessed all their sins privately to the penitentiary presbyter, and had then, at his judgment, uncovered their public sins publicly before the assembly of the Church and had performed public penance.
[46] Which constitution Socrates rightly calls an appendix added to the ancient canons; set out here, of discharging, the parts mentioned here were, for before the heresy of Novatus arose no one was compelled to go to a fixed presbyter, nor to confess any public sins. Some indeed were accustomed, according to the counsel of the priest to whom they had confessed all their sins, to confess publicly certain graver and public ones, as may be learned from Origen, Homily 2 on Psalm 37; yet, as I said, they were not bound to, but it was enough to confess all sins privately and to perform private or public penance according to the priest's command. But after the heresy of Novatus had been stirred up, it pleased the bishops to add something, lest the Novatians should be able to reprehend the Catholics for admitting the lapsed to communion too easily. Thus the praised Bellarmine sets out what the constitution of the ancient bishops was by which the penitentiary presbyter was set over the penitents after the heresy of Novatus arose; and since what he says of it is surely most like the truth, it hence now also turns out most like the truth that the parts of the penitentiary presbyter were to receive the secret confessions of those who had lapsed after Baptism, and to enjoin on them either a public confession of some public offences before the assembly of the Church, or another public penance even for hidden crimes, if he judged this expedient.
[47] [and that he abolished no other of these than those which had given occasion to scandal,] But did Nectarius abrogate all these by removing the penitentiary presbyter? Since the cause on account of which he removed this presbyter was, on the witness of Socrates and Sozomen, the crime of the deacon with the woman and its publication with immense scandal to the people, without doubt Nectarius abrogated only those parts of the office discharged by that presbyter which had given occasion to the crime and its publication, and therefore to the most grave scandal. But what were those parts? Sozomen, at the place cited above, writes thus: In the church … of Constantinople a fixed presbyter had been appointed to preside over the penitents, until a certain noble matron, ordered by this presbyter, on account of the sins which she had confessed, to fast and pray humbly to God, while she was staying in the church for this purpose, disclosed that she had been violated by a deacon. When this was known, all the common people were vehemently angry, because an insult had been brought upon the church; and the men of the sacred order were exposed to no moderate reproach. While therefore the matron of whom we speak here was staying rather long in the church in order to fulfil the public penance enjoined on her by the penitentiary presbyter, the deacon on this occasion committed the outrage with her; and this came to the ears of the people from the public confession of that woman. For although the sin was hidden, and the presbyter had not commanded her to disclose it to the people, yet she, when she was confessing publicly — as appears likely, either by the presbyter's command or of her own accord — other sins which were public, going further than was fitting, confessed that sin too out of indiscreet devotion; so that what had been committed on the occasion of public penance was made public on the occasion of public confession.
[48] public both penance and confession, but not. The matter, moreover, having been referred to Nectarius, he was at first uncertain what to do here; afterwards, having received counsel, as Socrates says, from the presbyter Eudaemon, he abrogated the penitentiary presbyter, and so abolished at once both public penance, on the occasion of which the shameful outrage of the deacon with the woman had been committed, and public confession, on the occasion of which it had become known to the people, a tumult arising thence against the clergy and a great mark of infamy being branded on the priestly order. But did Nectarius do nothing besides by abolishing the penitentiary presbyter? Calvin contends that private or auricular confession and likewise private penance were also at the same time abrogated by Nectarius; but, says Bellarmine at the place cited above, Nectarius neither abrogated nor could abrogate private confession and penance. Wherefore what Socrates and Sozomen write — that it was permitted by Nectarius that each should approach to partake of the sacred mysteries according to his own conscience — does not signify that it was permitted to the faithful to become partakers of the sacred table without confession and the judgment of the priest; but that they should not be compelled to go to the public tribunal of the Church, but should themselves take account of their own conscience, and if indeed they were without mortal sin, to communion
of the divine mysteries they might safely approach; but if otherwise, they should choose one of the presbyters to whom they might confess their sins privately. The words of Socrates which Bellarmine says are to be expounded thus have already been transcribed here at number 41; while those of Sozomen which correspond to them are these following: And when some had given him (namely Nectarius) counsel that he should grant to each one, according as he was conscious to himself and had confidence in himself, free power of approaching the communion of the sacred mysteries, he abolished the presbyter who presided over the performing of penance.
[49] Further, that these and similar words of Socrates are to be understood in that sense which Bellarmine assigns to them in the words already given, and that private or auricular confession was not abrogated by Nectarius, as the arguments adduced here from Bellarmine prove, is proved by the various arguments which that writer presently subjoins. The four chief of them I place before the reader's eyes in his own very words. Nectarius, he says, removed nothing but the appendix (namely the constitution of the ancient bishops already set out above at number 45 and following) to the ancient canons, which had been added at the beginning of the Novatian heresy; and that appendix, as we have already sufficiently shown, pertained only to public penance. Next, Nectarius removed nothing but what was necessary for calming the tumult of the people stirred up on the occasion of the disclosure of that outrage committed by the woman, namely, who had revealed it, and by the deacon of the church; and for this it was more than enough to take away public confession and penance; for from private confession and penance no tumult could arise. Thirdly, after the times of Nectarius the use of private confession always remained in the Greek church, as is evident from Chrysostom, Nicephorus, the Chartophylax, the Council in Trullo, and the other testimonies cited above. But no history relates that what Nectarius had done was revoked and retracted by any bishop or council: he had not therefore abrogated private confession. Fourthly, Sozomen, who wrote this history more fully and whom the adversaries cite most of all, affirms that God Himself commanded that pardon be given to the penitent, and that confession is necessary: but the same Sozomen does not reprehend Nectarius as an overthrower of divine law, but only doubtfully and moderately carps at him for having taken away the occasion of reproving one another's sins. Nor did any other writer in so many centuries of years accuse Nectarius, which many would certainly have done if he, a single bishop, had attempted to abrogate a thing so necessary and practised in the church from the times of the apostles.
[50] Such are the four chief arguments which Bellarmine alleges for his case, and these certainly prove clearly that not private or auricular, but only public confession, together with penance, was abrogated by Nectarius; but since Nectarius is, as it appears, carped at by Socrates and Sozomen for having done this, [auricular confession, he abrogated, and since the Saint, who by Socrates and Sozomen] it is now to be investigated whether this is done by them deservedly or undeservedly, and therefore whether he merited praise or blame by doing it. Sozomen, being about to narrate at the place cited above how and for what cause the presbyter who presided over the penitents was removed in the church, and having first stated that the first who did this was Nectarius, presently adds that almost all the bishops afterwards followed his example; but if he had deserved not to be praised but to be justly carped at for abrogating public confession and penance, who, I ask, could easily bring himself to believe that almost all the bishops would afterwards have followed his example?
[51] does not seem deservedly to be carped at for having done so, Tillemont indeed, in volume IX of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 488, judged that Nectarius is for that reason to be charged with imprudence; but if that writer is to be assented to in this matter, almost all the bishops, who afterwards, as has been said, followed the example of Nectarius, would also have to be charged with imprudence, which no one will say. But that Nectarius acted not imprudently but rather prudently in abolishing the penitentiary presbyter is shown by what I now subjoin. That presbyter could enjoin, and indeed in fact from time to time did enjoin, on the penitents that the offences they had declared in confession they should publish publicly before the people; and since, when this was done, even pagans and heretics saw that not a few persons guilty of great crimes were found among the Catholics and orthodox, no moderate infamy was thereby sprinkled upon the Church of God; and accordingly Nectarius prudently — in order, namely, to avert this evil — following the counsel of the presbyter Eudaemon, who judged that unless the penitentiary presbyter were abolished the church could not be free from all reproach (see the words of Socrates transcribed here at number 41), abrogated that presbyter, and therefore also the things over which he presided by virtue of his charge: public confession, and likewise public penance even for hidden crimes (for public penance for any public offences whatever did not cease to be in use after the decree of Nectarius).
[52] [having afterwards taken part in a synod held in the case of Bagadius and Agapius, he died in the year 397.] Let us now proceed to the other thing which, as I said, still occurs here to be recorded of Nectarius. Among the Canons of the Holy Apostles and of the Councils, illustrated with Commentaries by Theodore Balsamon, at page 761 and the two following, there is extant also a session of the synod held at Constantinople in the case of Bagadius and Agapius, both of whom claimed for themselves the bishopric of Bostra in Arabia; and in this session, in which Nectarius both took part and presided, it was pronounced by the fathers of the synod, Nectarius contributing not a little to it, that the deposition of Bagadius, in whose place Agapius had been elected, had not been lawfully made, by two bishops only. Moreover, this synod was held in the year 394, as is clear from the chronological notes which the said session bears at its head; and Nectarius did not survive in life very long after it. For in the year 397, on the 27th day of September, he departed from the living, as Socrates teaches in book 6, chapter 2, in these following words: Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, died on his last day, Caesarius and Atticus being consuls, on the fifth day before the Kalends of October.